STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hi Youqi,

Yes, it is ok from my side.
And thank you for creating this link.
I have entered your preliminary results in this link:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/jet-correlations/jetcorr-pwg-preliminary-plots

Cheers
Nihar

On 2022-10-02 00:31, Youqi Song wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
>
> I assume these plots are approved now? I created a post just with the
> plots:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/youqi/Multidimensional-jet-substructure-measurement-unfolded-machine-learning-method-200-GeV-pp
> , so you could link them to the list of preliminary plots from HP PWG.
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Youqi
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:54 PM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Youqi,
> >
> > Please find my replies inline.
> >
> > On 2022-09-28 20:41, Youqi Song wrote:
> > > Hi Nihar,
> > >
> > > To implement -4% efficiency, we looped over each track in the
> > > embedding files and generated a random number from a uniform
> > > distribution from 0 to 1, and if the random number is greater than
> > > 0.96, we dropped that track when clustering jets.
> >
> > Interesting, let's discuss this after HQ conference. For STAR
> > preliminary, it is Ok what you have.
> > Please remind us these topics in your next presentations.
> >
> > > I lowered the y-axis limit and updated the figures on slides 19
> > and 20
> > > here:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/prelim_request_092822.pdf
> > All your plots look great.
> >
> > > They haven't announced the timetable yet, so we are not sure how
> > long
> > > the talks need to be, but I can try to get a draft done by the end
> > of
> > > the week.
> > Ok.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Nihar
> >
> > > Best,
> > > Youqi
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 2:11 AM Nihar Sahoo
> > <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Youqi,
> > > >
> > > > Please find my remaining question and comments inline.
> > > >
> > > > On 2022-09-26 21:52, Youqi Song wrote:
> > > > > Hi Nihar,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the comments. Here are the updated slides
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/prelim_request_092622.pdf
> > > > > Yes, we can discuss the issue with smearing response after HQ.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the tracking uncertainty, it might be difficult to try
> > > > > increasing it by 4%, since we are using official embedding and
> > > > can't
> > > > > add tracks back.
> > > > Not sure, if I understand your procedure correctly, can you
> > inform
> > > > how
> > > > do you implement then -4% in embedding?
> > > >
> > > > > The ratio plot shown is MultiFold/RooUnfold, so I'm not sure
> > what
> > > > else
> > > > > I can label the y-axis to be. Maybe it's more clear now that I
> > > > > combined the ratio plot with the main plot of fig 1 in slide 15.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, I understand now, I was thinking about the uncertainty band.
> > But
> > > > it
> > > > is ok.and your plot looks nice now on slide#15.
> > > >
> > > > Can you please also lower y- axis for plots in slide#20 like in
> > > > slide15?
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to seeing your HQ presentation draft.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Nihar
> > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Youqi
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:05 AM Nihar Sahoo
> > > > <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Youqi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please find my reply and queries inline.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2022-09-25 23:02, Youqi Song wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Nihar,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. I updated the slides here:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/prelim_request_092522.pdf
> > > > > > > Response to unnumbered comments:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, I have three MCs, Herwig, Pythia8 and Pythia6, but what I
> > > > did
> > > > > > > earlier was just to use Pythia6 for the *misses*, I still did
> > > > > > > unfolding with each of the different MC prior shapes. (Now the
> > > > > > plots I
> > > > > > > updated on Friday have both the misses and the unfolded parts
> > > > with
> > > > > > > different priors). I plotted the fully corrected distributions
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > the different priors together with other sources of sys
> > > > > > uncertainty in
> > > > > > > backup slide 1, and I just added a backup slide 2 with just
> > the
> > > > > > > distributions due to prior shape variation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, that's fine.
> > > > > > > Ok, I've added a slide after slide 15 to show the error
> > > > breakdown.
> > > > > > I like this comparison plot that is in Slide#16. It looks like
> > at
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > stage both Multifold and RooUnfold give roughly the same
> > > > > > uncertainties.
> > > > > > But we need to go through some other systematic uncertainties
> > > > (like
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > mentioned below) in future after HQ conf.
> > > > > > > For detector and generator level pT shape smearing, I think
> > the
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > is to add some smearing to the response matrix itself. Maybe
> > > > > > others
> > > > > > > can correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > > > Not sure if I understand this correctly, this needs a
> > discussion.
> > > > > > Could
> > > > > > you please bring this topic up in your next presentation?
> > > > > > But for HQ, I think it is Ok, the systematic uncertainties you
> > > > have
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > STAR preliminary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Response to numbered comments:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. For the detector response systematics, there are hadronic
> > > > > > > correction, tower scale and tracking efficiency variation.
> > > > > > > For hadronic correction, I see how it makes sense to vary in
> > > > data
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > well, but I learned that Raghav and Isaac didn't vary data for
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > analyses, so I decided to go with how they did it. Also, I
> > tried
> > > > > > > varying data as well, but it didn't have a large effect. See
> > the
> > > > > > > comparison plot I added in slide 12.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good that you checked this for Hadronic correction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > For tower scale and tracking efficiency, I am not sure how we
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > vary data. Right now I decreased the tracking efficiency in
> > > > Geant
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > 4%, and kept data the same. Do you mean that we should drop 4%
> > > > > > tracks
> > > > > > > in data for this variation as well?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, we don't change anything in the data. We can only change in
> > > > the
> > > > > > tracking efficiency from embedding.
> > > > > > You mentioned that you only decreased 4%. Have you considered
> > > > also
> > > > > > increasing 4% in your systematic uncertainties ? Just to
> > confirm.
> > > > > > > 2. Great, I updated the figure in the slide.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good, Can you please lower your y-axis scale (say -0.01) so
> > that
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > markers can be seen properly, particularly at large M region?
> > > > > > (in a plot, all data points should be presented/shown clearly)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. The star markers are MultiFold mass distributions divided
> > by
> > > > > > > RooUnfold mass, so I'm not sure why we want a different style
> > > > > > marker?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suggesting because ratio star marker no need to be the same
> > with
> > > > > > Multifold marker style. just for cosmetic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The error bands are my unfolding systematics and RooUnfold
> > > > > > unfolding
> > > > > > > systematics added in quadrature, and then divided by RooUnfold
> > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > distribution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you please label your Y-axis accordingly without labeling
> > as
> > > > > > "Ratio
> > > > > > with RooUnfold"?
> > > > > > It is not clear what you have written above. Is not it?
> > > > > > Please put pT range, "STAR Preliminary", and other info like
> > your
> > > > > > slide#19.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. Great, agreed :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5. I updated the legend to include "Detroit tune". I'm not
> > sure
> > > > we
> > > > > > > want to push for the q vs g separation physics message. Maybe
> > > > > > Helen
> > > > > > > and Raghav can say more about this, but my understanding is
> > that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > quark and gluon jets can have similar fragmentation patterns
> > at
> > > > > > 200
> > > > > > > GeV and there can be ambiguity regarding e.g. if you want to
> > > > call
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > jet initiated from g->qqbar splitting a quark jet or a gluon
> > > > jet,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > instead it might be more interesting to treat the jets with
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > M and Q as having different fragmentation patterns.
> > > > > > Ok, that makes sense to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > Nihar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Youqi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 8:23 AM Nihar Sahoo
> > > > > > <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello Youqi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for your update and this information.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have the following comment and questions on your new
> > updated
> > > > > > > > results
> > > > > > > > (plots) and also your notes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regarding systematics,
> > > > > > > > > - You might have noticed that the systematic errors for
> > > > > > multifold
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > gone up by a bit. This is because I realized that before,
> > when
> > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > herwig and pythia8 shape variations, I was using pythia6
> > mass
> > > > > > > > > distribution for the misses. Now I changed it so that the
> > > > misses
> > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > for prior shape variation is also weighted by the mass ratio
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > herwig
> > > > > > > > > (pythia8) over pythia6.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Good that you found out this.
> > > > > > > > If I understand correctly, you have three MCs: Herwig,
> > Pythia8,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > Pythia6. You used each of these MC mass distributions for the
> > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > shape
> > > > > > > > variation for sys uncertainties. Earlier, you used Pythia6
> > for
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > cases, but now you corrected it with their respective mass
> > > > > > shapes.
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > that correct?
> > > > > > > > Could you show (include in your backup) us those mass
> > > > > > distribution
> > > > > > > > variations using these three different MC priors? Curious to
> > > > see
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > difference due to different fragmentations in the mass
> > > > > > distribution.
> > > > > > > > > - After talking with Isaac, I learned that unfolding
> > > > systematics
> > > > > > > > due to
> > > > > > > > > variation of iteration number and variation of prior shape
> > > > were
> > > > > > > > treated
> > > > > > > > > as correlated in previous analyses, while I originally had
> > > > these
> > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > in quadrature. Now I also treat them as correlated by just
> > > > > > taking
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > largest contribution to the unfolding systematic as the
> > > > overall
> > > > > > > > > unfolding systematic, and add it in quadrature with detector
> > > > > > > > > systematics.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you please separate out I) statistical uncertainty, II)
> > > > > > > > Correlated
> > > > > > > > Sys, and III) Uncorrelated Sys in your plot ( using Style2 in
> > > > > > > > slide#16)
> > > > > > > > without adding in quadrature? Please use a smaller marker
> > size
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > the stat. Error bar (even if it is small).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Regarding the question whether there's anything still
> > > > missing
> > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > raised during the meeting yesterday, I forgot to mention
> > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > > haven't included detector and generator level pT shape
> > > > smearing.
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > is included in Raghav's and Isaac's analyses because they
> > did
> > > > 1D
> > > > > > > > > reweighting, but we are not sure if it should be included
> > for
> > > > > > > > > multidimensional unfolding.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmm, Is not it that the total detector effects (tracking
> > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > pT smearing) are considered using this multifold while you
> > > > create
> > > > > > > > something like the response matrix? What am I missing here?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Comments on your slide#12 (from this email preliminary
> > templet
> > > > > > > > slides)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Slide#12: As you have mentioned, you have varied only in
> > the
> > > > > > > > embedding, not in the data. General practice is to vary in
> > the
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > not sure if that will be accurately translated to the
> > variation
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > data. It is interesting. i) Then how do you use tracking
> > > > > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > (+-4%) variation in embedding to get systematic
> > uncertainties?
> > > > > > ii)
> > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > you please do a test where you apply the same variation in
> > the
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > use the respective variation in the embedding and then check
> > if
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > approximately the same sys. variation between the two cases
> > > > > > ?(just
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > one case which one has a bigger effect).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. I like Style-4 (slide18) of figure-1 if you don't want to
> > > > > > shift
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > published results. In this case, I would suggest using an
> > open
> > > > > > black
> > > > > > > > star for published results and a filled red marker for your
> > new
> > > > > > > > Multifold results. Then you plot your red filled star top on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > published results (open back mark). In this case, you don't
> > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > shift the published results, and no confusion, and will look
> > > > > > good.
> > > > > > > > 3. SLide19, Fig-1 ratio plot: In this plot, assuming
> > > > statistical
> > > > > > > > uncertainties cancel out. Are these bands only the ratio of
> > > > > > > > systematic
> > > > > > > > uncertainties? Can you use a separate marker style here in
> > > > order
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > avoid your mass distribution red star style?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4. SLide#21: Thank you for including raw distribution here.
> > It
> > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > like there is a noticeable difference between raw and
> > Multifold
> > > > > > > > levels.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5. Slide#23: Thank you for including PYTHIA8 curves. I like
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > plot
> > > > > > > > and the comparison. Pythia8 and Data are consistent. You
> > could
> > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > that further study is ongoing to explore mass distribution
> > > > > > between q
> > > > > > > > vs.
> > > > > > > > g using this |Q| cut. This is the main physics of this |Q|
> > cut
> > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > Right? (Can you label "PYTHiA8" as "PYTHIA8 Detroit tune" or
> > > > > > …STAR
> > > > > > > > tune?)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > Nihar
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2022-09-23 20:29, Youqi Song via Star-hp-l wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have updated my slides for the preliminary request at:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/prelim_request_092222_0.pdf.
> > > > > > > > > A few things that I would like to point out:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regarding systematics,
> > > > > > > > > - You might have noticed that the systematic errors for
> > > > > > multifold
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > gone up by a bit. This is because I realized that before,
> > when
> > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > herwig and pythia8 shape variations, I was using pythia6
> > mass
> > > > > > > > > distribution for the misses. Now I changed it so that the
> > > > misses
> > > > > > > > > contribution for prior shape variation is also weighted by
> > the
> > > > > > > > mass
> > > > > > > > > ratio of herwig (pythia8) over pythia6.
> > > > > > > > > - After talking with Isaac, I learned that unfolding
> > > > systematics
> > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > to variation of iteration number and variation of prior
> > shape
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > treated as correlated in previous analyses, while I
> > originally
> > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > these added in quadrature. Now I also treat them as
> > correlated
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > taking the largest contribution to the unfolding systematic
> > as
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > overall unfolding systematic, and add it in quadrature with
> > > > > > > > detector
> > > > > > > > > systematics.
> > > > > > > > > - Regarding the question whether there's anything still
> > > > missing
> > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > raised during the meeting yesterday, I forgot to mention
> > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > > haven't included detector and generator level pT shape
> > > > smearing.
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > is included in Raghav's and Isaac's analyses because they
> > did
> > > > 1D
> > > > > > > > > reweighting, but we are not sure if it should be included
> > for
> > > > > > > > > multidimensional unfolding.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regarding plotting,
> > > > > > > > > - For fig. 1, I made the mass distribution plot with the
> > same
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > points in 4 different styles.- For fig. 1 ratio plot, the
> > > > error
> > > > > > > > band
> > > > > > > > > is now centered at 1 and is the quadrature of RooUnfold's
> > and
> > > > > > > > > MultiFold's unfolding systematics, divided by the mean
> > values
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > RooUnfold.
> > > > > > > > > - For fig. 2, I also included a plot of the M vs Q
> > correlation
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > raw data before unfolding.
> > > > > > > > > - For fig. 3, I have pythia8 curves plotted together with my
> > > > > > > > unfolded
> > > > > > > > > mass distributions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you have any comments/suggestions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Youqi
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 5:47 PM Youqi Song
> > > > <youqi.song AT yale.edu>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have uploaded my slides here:
> > > > > > > > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/youqi/multifold092222
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > Youqi
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 5:04 PM Tong Liu via Star-hp-l
> > > > > > > > > > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please find my pdf in this post:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/tongliu/Tong-Lius-HP-PWG-updates
> > > > > > > > > > Tong Liu
> > > > > > > > > > Ph.D. Student '2023
> > > > > > > > > > Physics Dept., Yale University
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tel: 203-435-2130
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:29 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
> > > > > > > > > > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hello All,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We got requests from Youqi and Tong to present their
> > results
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Hot
> > > > > > > > > > Quark conference.
> > > > > > > > > > And during Youqi's talk at the collaboration meeting, we
> > did
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > time to have Q&A.
> > > > > > > > > > So let's meet this week to discuss their updates.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Youqi and Tong, can you please send link of your slides in
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > again?
> > > > > > > > > > (I didn't get your previous emails, the reason I do not
> > know)
> > > > > > > > > > If anybody wants to discuss their results, please let us
> > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > HP-pwg weekly meeting Drupal page:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/Hard-Probes/Weekly-HP-PWG-meeting
> > > > > > > > > > Zoom Meeting link:
> https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09
> > [1]
> > > > [1]
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Meeting ID: 161 141 9615
> > > > > > > > > > Passcode: 744968
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > > > > > Barbara, Yi, Sooraj, Nihar
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 2022-09-19 22:13, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello All,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Last week we discussed a lot at the collaboration meeting,
> > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > > no urgent matter to discuss,  let's cancel this week's HP
> > > > pwg
> > > > > > > > > > meeting.
> > > > > > > > > > > Have a great week.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > > > > > > Barbara, Yi, Sooraj, and Nihar
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Star-hp-l mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Star-hp-l mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > > > > > > > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Star-hp-l mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > > > > > > > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Links:
> > > > > > > > > ------
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!HXAxDjpXwllezGXUg12_CP_CyiB1LboH0iAUfbzsPqj3eNb5aUboVO9QQZ6XzS2n6-OJ3TZo5Nq7ZITGfqCo0e94OA$
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Star-hp-l mailing list
> > > > > > > > > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Links:
> > > > > > > ------
> > > > > > > [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!BoY0IMYD87YlyC0E6bH2VCPQIHcRLzJj7X0OxGoAGqDB7vvV4xV5kA52ml71HdxJtHwEu26395xLJGHGX59wTJP5rw$
> > > > > Links:
> > > > > ------
> > > > > [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!AY99onlbPZAERQ8JTv73g9j81ASM172efJxmpy1l96C33ydc1qsfPOfY5pGMC1asn5Pe-WImnkYUnzek8vvo1KzX1A$
> > > Links:
> > > ------
> > > [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Cq5FUOmAj3PN2Z2A5doGpW0_GsQ-JMSRIqVT7tKFziK5UUn-rmtfReO_1IZvOXbuQNvpyjzPlnmfM4gk5dYkJ3QYFA$
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Gmge_6YcSKwWHabAw4Et6eLDY7bG02r2iZvyCTcV40PfLyWnc_84hGgSQMEzCW57HaeAjzL6CVl8c09MtojayzpBlA$